:?I too made the mistake of getting 32 bit Home Vista Premium on my Toshiba U205 that I bought from Office Depot. Anyone have any suggestions on how to get the 64 bit version with minimal cost? Office Depot says to contact Microsoft. Have not tried that yet.

If this is the case, then they shouldn't be using Duo Core processors which are only useful with 64bit software.

quote:e510bc943aExplain that to me please as the initial quote is the case. I have a dual core machine at home running 32 bit software that is doing just fine and is rather useful for handling extra processing like the World Community Grid work which includes Folding@Home and other projects that can take advantage of my extra computing power.[/quote:e510bc943a]

A dual core processor is twice as fast with 64 bit because then both processors are fully utilitzed.[/quote]

You are only using 1 of those 2 cores unless you run 64 bit. That is why it is twice as fast with 64 bit vs 32 bit.

So, are you saying that in 32 bit you can't use a second core? That seems like a bold statement to me.

---

Home Desktop: VoodooPC Hexx. AMD Athlon FX-60, 2 GB RAM, 2 x 250 GB HD, 7900 GTX video card. Home Laptop: HP dv4000, Pentium M, 2 GB RAM, 80 GB HD, ATi 700 Radeon Mobility

The only version of Vista that includes both 32-bit and 64-bit versions is Vista Ultimate. The retail version has two DVDs in the box.

If you have other versions see below:

Order Windows Vista Alternate Media:

https://om.one.microsoft.com/opa/Validation.aspx?StoreID=37eb3052-7e03-4ce7-bee0-7f8e478f92c9&LocaleCode=en-us&JavaScriptOn=yes

quote:54b7afe28fOk, I really want to understand this. My laptop has a core 2 duo processor. I am using 32 bit Vista Home Premium. So you are saying that although the computer runs faster with the 2 core processor, it does not fully utilize both cores? However, if I was running Vista Enterprise or Ultimate 32 bit it would fully utilize both cores? If that is true, why do we need 64 bit at all?

I don't mean to sound stupid, I am just trying to understand this. Thanks.[/quote:54b7afe28f]

Very general background:
Intel PIII x86 processors were 32-bit, single core (single path). They could execute 32-bit processes, one at a time. While 32-bit systems executed one thing at a time, they did it quickly and appeared to be performing multiple tasks at the same time. Windows versions up to and including XP were 32-bit Operating Systems. Chip manufacturers (Intel, AMD and others) continued to push clock speeds to the point where heat generation became a real problem. PC case cooling became a major concern. Heat will ruin PC components.
This is important to power users (such as gamers and/or heavy multitaskers). Using your PC to get e-mail or surf the web is not going to generate much heat. 64-bit single core came next. 64-bit chips were able to do more complex (64-bit processes) than 32-bit chips. To fully utilize 64-bit CPUs, a 64-bit OS and 64-bit software applications were needed. PCs had 32-bit Windows. There is a 64-bit Windows XP, but it was not a formal Microsoft rollout and not widely used... or supported. See: http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/64bit/default.mspx

With 64-bit single core CPUs, high-end users still had heat issues. Chip manufacturers released dual core CPUs (2 paths). This is two CPUs put together. This allowed two processes to be performed simultaneously. The first dual cores released were at slower clock speeds than the fastest single core chips (all 64-bit CPUs) available. Gamers didn't see the advantage since games were still written as single core 32-bit applications. The single core processor at a faster clock speed would run a single core application faster. But, If you were performing several processes while running the game the dual core was faster (even though it had a slower clock speed than the single core). Also, the dual core ran cooler. Dual core chips had more performance headroom than single core.

Note: Original Intel dual cores (P4) had major heat issues. They were based on the PIII architecture. PIII was good for it's time. but it was at it's performance limit. Intel was slow to admit they needed to change. AMD's dual core architecture proved more efficient (cooler) and faster. Intel rebounded to take the lead, recently with Core 2 Duo family. That is an ongoing battle that is good for (us) consumers.

Recenty, Intel has hit the market with quad core, stacking 4 CPUs (4 paths): http://www.intel.com/products/processor/core2xe/index.htm

You have a 64-bit Core processor that is also dual core (2 paths). It will run a 32-bit OS and 32-bit applications well. To fully "optimize" a 64-bit processor, a 64-bit OS better... assuming that the 64-bit OS environment is complete. Hardware driver compatibility is crucial. Software compatibilty is a must. With a 64-bit OS, compatible 32-bit software is good, 64-bit software optimzed for a 64-bit OS is better. Few exist. Also, to get FULL use of dual core (quad core has more potential) software companies need to write code that will fully utilize both cores efficiently (This is supposed to be taking place).

I hope this helps.